I respect Lacob and Myers, how they make such bold decisions all the time for the betterment of the team. However, if the Warriors keep going like this and try to get involved in blockbuster deals each year, players aren't going to want to come here since they feel they'll be traded pretty quickly. If Lee had knew that he was going to be gotten rid of, he may have signed somewhere else. If Klay thompson is a Warrior next year, he might have bitter feelings about playing for the franchise. There is no loyalty and it's hard to build long term when you cut out the human element and treat players like they're numbers. The Warriors management is being too bold and treating everyone like they're Pau Gasol, ready to be traded at any team. If the Dubs keep going like this, they'll never maintain a steady identity like the Spurs.

Just watch what happens when the day comes that they want Stephen Curry out. It may seen too unbelievable, but strange things happen in the NBA. Lastly, how do you know Love would put up the same numbers if he was on a better team? It's pretty obvious that part of his numbers come from carrying a big load. I bet you that even if the Warriors did get Kevin Love, that sooner or later, they'd try to trade him too. Why is that? Because if you're gonna complain about the defense at the power forward, Love hardly solves that problem. And if he has about the same affect on the Warriors as Dwight did on the Lakers, the Dubs are in trouble.

The new ownership had said right from the start that they wanted to build a winner, a contender and they made the first trade by dealing Monta for Bogut, a move that worked and continues to. That is their primary objective and really the objective of all owners of nba teams, professional sports franchises in truth. The team is not quite a sure contender so more changes will be made, maybe just one or two.

Lee has been here for four years and though fans of the team have talked about his negatives every year he has been here, he is still here and produces the same way. He has gotten paid good salary and kept for a length of time that is rather long term, that shows willingness to keep a player that is holding his own. Klay has now for the first time been mentioned in trade rumours but that happens to many if not most good players, in that they get mentioned and some actually get traded for attempted upgrades and improvements for teams. If Klay does stay, he is the one that chooses how he will feel and if he feels bitter, that's his decision. The nba is a business and he, like every other player, needs to understand that.

The risk with Love is that he can opt out in one year and if before he is traded for an extension has not been signed, then the team absolutely might lose him for nothing in a year and the trade will be looked at as a disaster. The truth is that Love stated that the team was one of his preferred destinations in that after trading for him could still have the team to be a contender and thus he might stay. He still should only be traded for if he at least agrees to not opt out in one year.

The ownership has held true to their aim of being a contender, being talked about for two straight offseasons in trades to improve the team. Love is a superstar and likely will improve the team, whether to the level of being a true contender is the unknown.

Lacob & Co have proven they can provide both. Players know this league is a business. As long as these trades taking place continue to be upgrades (ie, Monta-for-Bogut, cash-for-the 14th pick [Klay], etc), the players will continue to support management because they are sticking to their promise of improving the team in every way possible.

IMO, you got it backwards. This USED to be a team no one wanted to come to. Now, it's a haven. That's a big about face in only 5 seasons.

If Curry is the 5th best player in the league, there should be 4 players we'd be willing to trade him for. Likewise, Klay Thompson might be top 20... That means there are 19 guys I'd swap for him (and Kevin Love is one of them).

Thing is it's giving Klay and Lee, arguable a top 10 PF and apparently Minnesota is asking for Barnes and/or 2015 1st rounder, for Love and then they want us to also take KMartin's high contract for another three years. KMartin who is a rapidly deteriorating player and may not even be worthy of getting 20mins a game within those three years.

Biggest thing even, is that Love could just leave after one year, as he will be an UFA. The only way the team should trade for Love is at the very least that he agree to opt in, if not sign an extension, before the trade is made.

Kevin Martin might be the scum of the earth, but hes still capable of 14 points in a third fiddle role. If we have Curry dropping 25 and Love adding 20, we don't need Martin to score 18 points. The bottom line is he's a starting SG and he'd be a better option than anything we've got if we give up Klay.

Hell, if he deteriorates, you can start Barnes at the 3, move Iggy to the 2, and conserve Martin's minutes.

It's like Jeff Van Gundy said: when you come away with the best singular piece, you've won the trade. Love is better than Lee, Love is better than Thompson, so what's the hold up?

32 wrote:Kevin Martin might be the scum of the earth, but hes still capable of 14 points in a third fiddle role. If we have Curry dropping 25 and Love adding 20, we don't need Martin to score 18 points. The bottom line is he's a starting SG and he'd be a better option than anything we've got if we give up Klay.

Hell, if he deteriorates, you can start Barnes at the 3, move Iggy to the 2, and conserve Martin's minutes.

It's like Jeff Van Gundy said: when you come away with the best singular piece, you've won the trade. Love is better than Lee, Love is better than Thompson, so what's the hold up?

This is the nature of the NBA, are we trying to get better as a team or are we trying to make all the players happy ?

Think of a basketball team as a corporation and us fans the stock holders, aren't we trying to maximize the the profits and be the best ? That means being innovative, means taking over smaller companies, we are trying to be the best, the Apple of the world. You provide the best product the fans will be happy, the stockholders will be happy, if means the team gets better we go for it. Its the nature of the game.

As much as I'd like to have Love and he is a superstar, with him opted in or extended, the question still is if enough quality players will surround him and Curry. Iguodala, Bogut and DGreen are very good but after them it is unknown the quality of Crawford, Ezeli and Barnes (if he isn't included in the trade for Love). To be a great team at least eight players that could start and at least play pretty well are needed in order to keep five good players on the court at the same time most of the time.

I agree with this. Yes, it's a business, but these aren't robots. The intangibles that separate good teams from bad teams (besides talent), is team chemistry. Chemistry and familiarity is not going to be the greatest if you just keep trading out starters. Look at the Spurs model. Same coach, same big 3 for over a decade. Yes talented, but how many other trio of stars have decided to stay together that long?

Now the difference of course is

1) did the current squad underachieve?2) is the current squad (same starting 5) incapable of being contenders?

Those are questions that aren't a hard NO imo. When you consider health & bench, I'm not sure #1 is a no. And when you consider a healthy squad + the development of the young guys like Curry Klay Green Barnes... is #2 out of the question? You want to reward a team if it meets realistic expectations. So does the finish warrant gutting the roster? Idk. So there's a balance between panicking and being aggressive after top free agents/players on trading block.

I'm kinda conflicted on this Kevin Love trade. You are getting a top 10 player to pair with Curry, but losing 2 starters. Maybe it is a good idea to go for multiple 'superstars' over a good solid starting 5? That's been the model many teams have succeeded with (Heat, Thunder, etc). But didn't work out that well for the Rockets (Harden, Howard, weak supporting cast).

So I think there is a balance and a line Lacob needs to walk. He risks pissing off a few of his starters and star player Curry, and you expect them to show you loyalty (resigning) when they're constantly on trade block (Klay, Lee, Barnes). Curry and Iggy are against trading Klay, disappointed over Jackson firing, etc. Lacob needs to walk that line and/or stop these leaks from coming out.

I agree with this. Yes, it's a business, but these aren't robots. The intangibles that separate good teams from bad teams (besides talent), is team chemistry. Chemistry and familiarity is not going to be the greatest if you just keep trading out starters. Look at the Spurs model. Same coach, same big 3 for over a decade. Yes talented, but how many other trio of stars have decided to stay together that long?

Now the difference of course is

1) did the current squad underachieve?2) is the current squad (same starting 5) incapable of being contenders?

Those are questions that aren't a hard NO imo. When you consider health & bench, I'm not sure #1 is a no. And when you consider a healthy squad + the development of the young guys like Curry Klay Green Barnes... is #2 out of the question? You want to reward a team if it meets realistic expectations. So does the finish warrant gutting the roster? Idk. So there's a balance between panicking and being aggressive after top free agents/players on trading block.

I'm kinda conflicted on this Kevin Love trade. You are getting a top 10 player to pair with Curry, but losing 2 starters. Maybe it is a good idea to go for multiple 'superstars' over a good solid starting 5? That's been the model many teams have succeeded with (Heat, Thunder, etc). But didn't work out that well for the Rockets (Harden, Howard, weak supporting cast).

So I think there is a balance and a line Lacob needs to walk. He risks pissing off a few of his starters and star player Curry, and you expect them to show you loyalty (resigning) when they're constantly on trade block (Klay, Lee, Barnes). Curry and Iggy are against trading Klay, disappointed over Jackson firing, etc. Lacob needs to walk that line and/or stop these leaks from coming out.

Thing is, Rock, sentimentality is a lost virtue in the offices of NBA GMs.

You're not gonna get a second or third chance to prove yourself when there's a clear-cut upgrade on the table. If Kevin Love can be had without surrendering Curry, we should get him. Again, besides Curry, we have nobody else whose even remotely close to being in his league.

I have faith in Myers to fill in the cracks if a Love trade leaves us without Barnes, Lee, or even Thompson. Someone can be acquired to start at the 2 or 3 (you have that luxury with Iggy, a guy who can play either position) or a guy can be moved into the starting lineup (such as Draymond Green) and you upgrade the bench with the funds you save from not having to pay the Thompson extension...

But holding off on improving the team, talent-wise, just to avoid hurting someone's feelings is not something NBA GMs make a habit of... especially considering most star players only commit long-term when they know the front office is doing all they can to win. You can't justify to Stephen Curry that you hung up on Minnesota because you didn't want to offend David Lee or Klay Thompson by placing them in trade rumors. These guys are professionals. They'll deal if they get traded. Ain't like either are Bay Area guys with roots here anyways; David Lee is from Missouri, Klay Thompson is a So-Cal kid who grew up a Lakers fan. It's not gonna break their hearts to not be lifelong Warriors.

It was just 1 or 2 years ago when many people used to say Lee was better than Love. Love plays on a team that needs his high production. But on a winning team, what if his numbers shrink? He becomes David lee, respectively. But you gotta remember, Lee made the all star team in the West. Sure, Love was hurt that year. But that's not easy to do. He did it on a winning team, and Love has never made the playoffs. I'm not sure Love is a superstar if he can't lead his team to the playoffs even once. Most superstars do lead their team to the playoffs or at least get them dam close. It wasn't too long ago when Lee was considered better than Curry. i think that Lee just lost too much weight last year. But if he had more muscle, just a little more, he can be a 20 10 player. The only real difference is Love is younger and shoots 3's.

I've been teetering on the fence on this trade if it includes Klay... I think what it comes down to for me is Opportunity. Going forward, how many times do you get the opportunity to add a big man of Kevin Love's caliber? Pretty slim I'd say. Now, do I trust that he is a real "superstar" or just some guy that puts up big numbers on a sucky team and it doesn't translate to winning? I think he is the real deal, and how nice would it be to have Love who is a guy -- like Blake Griffin -- who commands double teams. We saw how effective a player like that was for the Clips with Blake. It's a game changer. Having Curry & Love pick and pop would be a ridiculous thing to cover. So the 2nd thing is, who's services would be more difficult to replace - Klay or Love? Obviously Love. That's another factor. Klay is actually pretty rare though being a great shooter who plays excellent D.

The main thing is when you look around the NBA at teams who are going far in the playoffs -- they have 2 or 3 stars / superstars. The Curry & Love tandem would be the building block for years to come. The HARD PART is to find the superstars, not the 'very good' players or 'role players' ... so because of that, although I love Klay's game, I couldn't be mad if this trade went down. And if it doesn't, the status quo isn't so bad when you consider that there's still room for growth from the younger players.